POLL - Should Helmet Threads Be Banned? - Warning: May Not Contain Poll.

Lusk Doyle

:pac:

buffalo

POLL - should Lusk Doyle be banned? :pac:

Lumen

I propose that all polls must contain polls.

Mycroft H

* except on a friday.

buffalo

Lumen wrote: »

I propose that all polls must contain polls.

Can we vote on that?

07Lapierre

Not banned, just "Capped"

Lusk Doyle

buffalo wrote: »

POLL - should Lusk Doyle be banned? :pac:

MOD VOICE: Don't be such a j**K!?! :pac:

Also, attack the post, not the poster!

Lusk Doyle

07Lapierre wrote: »

Not banned, just "Capped"

Hah! I hope that you are ready for another year of secretarial duties :eek:

kuro_man

How about 1 helmet thread (sticky?) - no other helmet threads allowed.

Hungrycol

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

MOD VOICE: Don't be such a j**K!?! :pac:

Also, attack the post, not the poster!

Backseat Modding....

Mob/pitchforks: Ban ban ban ban ban ban

Lusk Doyle

Hungrycol wrote: »

Backseat Modding....

Mob/pitchforks: Ban ban ban ban ban ban

Be sure to wear helmets while out angry-mobing!

el tel

Not before I start a thread about the possible safety benefits of helmets having particular colours or colour schemes. I think it's an important topic that requires doing to death.

Jawgap

There is absolutely no proof that making helmet threads compulsory improves the safety of cyclists.

The evidence that the compulsory abolition of such threads would somehow improve the level of discourse in the forum is questionable at best and fundamentally flawed at worst. Compulsory abolition has been shown (in Australia) to discourage participation in forum discussions - Trinity College Dublin are working on a comparable study for Ireland.

I, for one, object to the Lusk 'Nanny State' Doyle intervening to tell us what we can and can't discuss in respect of cycling

Hermy

How will people know about the dangers of helmet threads if we ban them?

Beasty

kuro_man wrote: »

How about 1 helmet thread (sticky?) - no other helmet threads allowed.

We're already at our sticky quota

We could have a helmet mega-thread, linked from the FAQs, but that means we would have to start a new one to make sure we have all the angles covered :pac:

One of the other mods says helmet threads does his head in - my stock response is he should wear appropriate protection ...

Lusk Doyle

Jawgap wrote: »

There is absolutely no proof that making helmet threads compulsory improves the safety of cyclists.

The evidence that the compulsory abolition of such threads would somehow improve the level of discourse in the forum is questionable at best and fundamentally flawed at worst. Compulsory abolition has been shown (in Australia) to discourage participation in forum discussions - Trinity College Dublin are working on a comparable study for Ireland.

I, for one, object to the Lusk 'Nanny State' Doyle intervening to tell us what we can and can't discuss in respect of cycling

Dear Sir / Madam,

I wish to object to your recent tirade of abuse following my perfectly reasonable blah blah blah.

At no point did I advocate my "intervening to tell us what we can and can't discuss in respect of cycling" Quote. Un-quote!

Further, helmets are things of fashion and have been demonstrated ad nauseum to NOT have anything to do with cycling. 43% of all cyclists know that. 21% of them jump red lights.

doozerie

Yes, helmet threads should be banned. Threads dangling from helmets could trip someone up and cause them to bump their head, they are tantamount to murder.

Threaded helmets, on the other hand, would be great. Apply some threadlock, screw the helmet onto the head, and voila... a person who is permanently protected from all the dangers that life can throw at them. Using the tap (or die) on the person's head first is not without its dangers, but those are clearly outweighed by the benefits.

Korvanica

POLL - Should a Poll be added to this thread ?

Beasty

Korvanica wrote: »

POLL - Should a Poll be added to this thread ?

No for 2 reasons - Firstly I don't think Lusk Doyle has a clue as to how to add one. Secondly we have absolutely no intention of following the result if it doesn't suit us - not having a vote means we should be able to gloss over the whole issue if necessary;)

Jawgap

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Dear Sir / Madam,

I wish to object to your recent tirade of abuse following my perfectly reasonable blah blah blah.

At no point did I advocate my "intervening to tell us what we can and can't discuss in respect of cycling" Quote. Un-quote!

Further, helmets are things of fashion and have been demonstrated ad nauseum to NOT have anything to do with cycling. 43% of all cyclists know that. 21% of them jump red lights.

I call troll on Lusk Doyle - bringing up this subject is just another example of cycling's arrivistas trying to stymie the debate around true cycling issues of concern.

Cycling helmets are incredibly valuable at protecting cyclists from
(a) Gay Byrne
(b) Ill-informed Guards worried about what the sargent will say if they don't nick someone for something on a bike
(c) Mammies, Daddies, wives and girlfriends who remain convinced that leaving the house without a helmet means that you will be a drooling vegetable in Beaumont next time they see you
(d) Noel Brett
(e) The AH Forum

Helmets are incredibly important - how else would you carry your sunglasses, energy bars, gloves, Garmin and lights from the bike into the coffee shop?

Jawgap

Korvanica wrote: »

POLL - Should a Poll be added to this thread ?

Adding a Pole would make more sense:D

check_six

Helmet Thread trajectory
- spark - Media commentator, or non-cycling boards poster suggests making helmets compulsory.
- someone who has fallen off their bike claims that their polystyrene hat saved their life and endorses compulsion
- someone claims that compulsion is a bad thing for cycling numbers
- someone claims that compulsion makes sense because no one wants to smash their head off the ground
- many people say they wear helmets, but are against compulsion
- Science! Tomasrojo, or Monument, or one of those fellas who can remember things from literally *weeks* ago dig out all the links to studies and reports on number of accidents, types of accidents, and protective benefits of helmets in those accidents.
- Won't someone think of the children?! Compulsion for younger cyclists is endorsed.
- Won't someone think of the children?! (part 2) Horrific stories of kids getting choked by their helmet straps or having necks twisted in falls are rolled out.
- Someone who hasn't read the rest of the thread (or any of the cycling forum) mentions (whisper it) H*-V** for the first time.
- Chaos erupts temporarily
- Someone suggest that helmets should be made compulsory, again.

-Around this time the circle becomes complete as the same arguments have to be re-treaded.

I think that covers most of the points, maybe we should flesh this out a bit and have a rolling fake thread on the first page. People can go in and view it and think they are adding new posts but it's just the same animated gif rolling over and over and over...

Lusk Doyle

Beasty wrote: »

No for 2 reasons - Firstly I don't think Lusk Doyle has a clue as to how to add one. Secondly we have absolutely no intention of following the result if it doesn't suit us - not having a vote means we should be able to gloss over the whole issue if necessary;)

I was being sarcastic in my OP :rolleyes:

Jawgap

@checksix - you forgot to add the bits where a mod goes a bit medieval and dishes out a few infractions / bans

Beasty

Jawgap wrote: »

@checksix - you forgot to add the bits where a mod goes a bit medieval and dishes out a few infractions / bans

shush will ya!!!

Lusk Doyle

I've edited the title for "clarity".

buffalo

el tel wrote: »

it's an important topic that requires doing to death.

Sounds like we should be wearing helmets so!

Lumen

This thread brings to mind those "Peanuts. Warning: May Contain Nuts" labels.

Except it's more like "Peanuts: Warning: does not contain nuts".

But as every internet pedant knows, peanuts are not actually nuts.

Frankly, the implications of this are beyond me.

Lusk Doyle

I think it's time for somebody to please think of the children!!!

Close the damn thread!

Beasty

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

I've edited the title for "clarity".

Took the "easy" option there I see Lusk Doyle

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Close the damn thread!

Not a cat in hell's chance - you got yourself into this...

07Lapierre

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

I think it's time for somebody to please think of the children!!!

They should ALWAYS wear Helmets!

Iwannahurl

BIKE HELMET PROTECTS BOARDS MEMBER FROM HELMET-INSPIRED BEATING

Grudaire

I DEMAND that atari jaguar is included in your non-poll.

Lusk Doyle

Cliste wrote: »

I DEMAND that atari jaguar is included in your non-poll.

You can demand til the cows come home!

Korvanica

Beasty

Cliste wrote: »

I DEMAND that atari jaguar is included in your non-poll.

I was going to add a poll with the question raised in post #2, and 2 options, yes or atari jaguar. Then I thought maybe not, I'll save the OP from such embarrassment. Having further thoughts about it now though ...

Lusk Doyle

Beasty wrote: »

I was going to add a poll with the question raised in post #2, and 2 options, yes or atari jaguar. Then I thought maybe not, I'll save the OP from such embarrassment. Having further thoughts about it now though ...

Well, you are the "numbers" man...:rolleyes:

Jawgap

Hi lads,

Just wondering how much time I should spend on a helmet thread and can you get them through the Cycle to Work Scheme?

At the moment I'm posting in an old Commuting and Transport thread, but I think I'd like to upgrade - not looking to do anything serious, just a bit of trolling some evenings and maybe post the odd anecdote.

I thought about an RLJ thread, but I don't think it would really suit me and the hi-viz / no lights type threads seem a bit pedestrian.

I'm not ready for any kind of serious stuff on the bike so I don't need to go to a Lance Armstrong thread.

Any advice appreciated.

J

Korvanica

I honestly think we need to ask the "people" of after hours how they feel about wearing helmets. They love cyclists there and I believe the motorists there would benefit from a good helmet discussion.

They might even be open to the idea of motorists wearing helmets.

smacl

Jawgap wrote: »

Any advice appreciated.

Well J,

You can save loads by going 2nd hand. Have you considered resurrecting an old helmet thread? I knows it's not as nice as having a shiny new thread of your own, but you get loads more crap for much less effort.

You can save loads by going 2nd hand. Have you considered resurrecting an old helmet thread? I knows it's not as nice as having a shiny new thread of your own, but you get loads more crap for much less effort.

To get that bit of extra length out of your helmet thread, don't forget to keep quoting and re-quoting stuff, even if it bears no relevance to the subject under discussion. Being succinct is never going to get you to that magical 10th page.

Edit: Also feel free to back any wild claims you might make with a random white paper, safe in the knowledge that no one will actually read it, and it makes you look that bit more sciency.

Flandria

Helmet threads, like helmets, should be compulsory...

Iwannahurl

Korvanica wrote: »

I honestly think we need to ask the "people" of after hours how they feel about wearing helmets. They love cyclists there and I believe the motorists there would benefit from a good helmet discussion.

They might even be open to the idea of motorists wearing helmets.

At this point I feel obliged to say something traditional such as "you're nothing but a car-hating anti-motorist".

Captain Havoc

Mod warning: harsh but warranted.

Lusk Doyle

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Mod warning: harsh but warranted.

So, not really a warning then? More of a kudos, really.

Lusk Doyle

If a cyclist, who is not wearing a helmet falls, but there is nobody there to see it, do they still make a noise

Hungrycol

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

If a cyclist, who is not wearing a helmet falls, but there is nobody there to see it, do they still make a noise

I can bet the expletives can be heard.

chakattack

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

If a cyclist, who is not wearing a helmet falls, but there is nobody there to see it, do they still make a noise

Everyone knows you can't/won't fall off so long as you don't wear one

buffalo

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

So, not really a warning then? More of a kudos, really.

Don't question mod warnings in thread!!

Lusk Doyle

buffalo wrote: »

Don't question mod warnings in thread!!

It's ok. I was wearing a helmet at the time.

Beasty

buffalo wrote: »

Don't question mod warnings in thread!!

Back-seat modding - banned*!!!


*Not really - not this time anyway ...

Capt'n Midnight

First they will ban helmets
then it will be hats
and hoods
and then all head coverings

I don't like wet hair :mad: